Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Why do rightists want to obey the 1% In the US they even voted one in as POTUS. Is it because they are submissives also called Bottoms and want a Superior to lead them.

Who do you think politicians on the left are? Rich.

Not to mention, many industries associated with the left throw a lot of money around. Just look at the art industry, with those single color backgrounds and a little "Zipline" going for millions.

Those on the right don't have a monopoly on big money.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Why do rightists want to obey the 1% In the US they even voted one in as POTUS. Is it because they are submissives also called Bottoms and want a Superior to lead them.

They're "useful idiots" and yes, there's some desperate need to be lead.

eg TI, Surtur and SquallX are convinced Trump is looking out for them and he genuinely cares about them.

Originally posted by Robtard
They're "useful idiots" and yes, there's some desperate need to be lead.

eg TI, Surtur and SquallX are convinced Trump is looking out for them and he genuinely cares about them. They are so disillusioned with the world, they have truly joined a cult. But Trump is more dangerous than L Ron Hubbard. They need a reason to live. Women have rejected them, for TI and Squall X the saw bad stuff whilst influenced by a purpose they found to be a lie and need to blame someone. Surt is on disability and unemployable. Poor broken ****s.

I have little interest in cucking to rich people or elites, I just think they have a right to their own property.

Who said they didn't?

The problem for me arises when their wealth/gains comes at the expense of those financially below them and using their political influence which comes with wealth to further that cause. To the point of this thread, the useful idiots who gleefully help them and are often victims themselves but refuse to see it.

Probably me, I've often banged on about redistribution of wealth and I do believe in taxes, **** I'm a European. We love that shit...

Originally posted by Robtard
Who said they didn't?

The problem for me arises when their wealth/gains comes at the expense of those financially below them and using their political influence which comes with wealth to further that cause. To the point of this thread, the useful idiots who gleefully help them and are often victims themselves but refuse to see it.

That's bribery for you.


Sorry, "lobbying".

Who was it that established money = speech? Jefferson?

I forgot to give an example. The people who rely on the ACA to survive, yet voted for Trump and still support Trump after he's attempted to and gutted it

Originally posted by Robtard
Who said they didn't?
Well the point I've heard some people (not accusing anyone in particular) make about my economic views, ie. lower taxes and being against wealth redistributionism, is that I have some special love for right people when in reality I just view their property rights the same as anyone else's.

Originally posted by Robtard
The problem for me arises when their wealth/gains comes at the expense of those financially below them
Depends on what you mean by that. If it's an honest employer employee contract arrangement thing where the employee knew what they were getting into I don't really care about the difference in wealth between them. If we're talking some shady duplicitous shit or scam type shit like my friend's old boss skimping on paying him overtime then yeah I agree with you.

Originally posted by Robtard
and using their political influence which comes with wealth to further that cause. To the point of this thread, the useful idiots who gleefully help them and are often victims themselves but refuse to see it.
I myself am not a fan of corporatism... that's the kinda shit that keeps me from smoking my weed legally... so yeah I can agree there.

Probably because they view democrats as the primary reason they aren't wealthy themselves, and not the fact they are useless (or useful in a way that doesn't benefit them). So they buy on the hype with a lot of hope.

It's kind of sad.

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
Probably because they view democrats as the primary reason they aren't wealthy themselves, and not the fact they are useless (or useful in a way that doesn't benefit them). So they buy on the hype with a lot of hope.

It's kind of sad.

When you play the "we care" card, and don't seem to care about the hapless factory worker/blue collar shmuck, it's an easy target to vent off of.


That doesn't mean they're right. The fact is, Democrats can no more fix that problem then Republicans can...

Same way Obama met with Silicon Valley big shots about lost jobs to outsourcing, and they told him "Sorry, Mr. President. Those jobs aren't coming back."

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Why do rightists want to obey the 1% In the US they even voted one in as POTUS. Is it because they are submissives also called Bottoms and want a Superior to lead them.

lol




To take your question seriously, it's the same reason any minority would support a super shitty party that most definitely does not represent and does not work towards resolving minority issues (and actually harms them and often). Behold, the Democratic Party and its super super amazing propaganda machine that has Hispanics and Blacks voting for a party that is definitely doing nothing for them and only harming them. Did immigration issues get resolved under Obama or make any tangible progress? No. Oh, but we certainly had some immigration crap happen, right? Minorities were tossed crumbs, but not real progress was made. As always happens with Democrats.



LBJ explained the Democrats quite well:




Just yesterday, I was reading pro-Democrat propaganda on reddit about how amazing LBJ was for black people. LBJ was truly a disgusting, racist, piece of crap.Oohhh, but he's such a righteous leader for black issues and made so much progress for black issues, right?

Same exact concept for some conservatives and the GOP. They buy into the "large, successful corporations are good for us! Less regulations on everything! Less taxes on corporations and the rich!"

Say what you will about LBJ, but he pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through; that was a step in the right direction for the country as a whole, especially at that time.

Originally posted by Robtard
Say what you will about LBJ, but he pushed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through; that was a step in the right direction for the country as a whole, especially at that time.

Oh, the very expensive legislation that ended up not actually helping African Americans but for some odd reason, there's still people talking about how amazing it was for the civil rights movement?

Desegregation "progress" reversed and is actually referred to as a "failure":

https://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-and-diversity/brown-at-60-great-progress-a-long-retreat-and-an-uncertain-future

Black people still "enjoy" the highest rate of joblessness but the gaps have remained almost exactly the same before and after the Civil Rights Act:

http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/charts/unemployment-by-race-and-ethnicity/

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300003

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300006



Blacks still "enjoy" a higher rate of poverty level wages:

http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-wages-figure-4f-share-workers-earning/


And, this is the kicker: the had a smaller gap of poverty level wages BEFORE the Civil Rights Act. Meaning, relative to poverty level wages, blacks were better before the "amazing and helpful" act.

And here is something that people really really don't like to talk about: labor force participation by race in 1900 vs. today.



Ratio of black to white, prime working age males, in 1900:

1

Meaning white men and black men had almost exactly the same amount of labor force participation rates.

hmm

What about now?

.85

Hmm


Don't you find that a bit odd?

https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2292&context=facpub






And I looked it up:

Wage gap between black and white has been between 51%-64% since the 1940s. Meaning, black households are making 51-64% what white households are making...for decades. Civil Rights Act? Doesn't seem to be effective. We peaked on income ratios between 1970 and 1980 from what I'm finding. And many studies suggest this was due to the 1960s civil rights movement. But then why did those gains halt or even reverse?

So what do we have? Segretation is still a massive problem. Income inequality is still a problem. Educational attainment, while still much improved across all races, is still a problem (by race comparisons). Marriage rates are worse than ever for African Americans compared to other races.

Other than the 1970s, let's forget that decade. What did the Civil Rights Act REALLY do? Other than, of course, causing marriage rates to worsen among African Americans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/08/28/these-seven-charts-show-the-black-white-economic-gap-hasnt-budged-in-50-years/




It's quite terrible that I had to dig around this much to find actual data on this. I had to dig through so many websites that hid the raw date from me so much, like this. And they talk and talk about all these "wonderful" thing that the Civil Rights Act did. And they try to hide the lackluster performance by citing numbers from 1990. Well, what about 1900? What about 1950? You need historical context to test efficacy of public policy.



But you did say something that I definitely agree with. It was a step in the right direction, for the time. Just didn't provide anything long-lasting.


Edit - Redlining and wealth. Still the same old issues.

Was still a step in the right direction for the country at that time.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, the very expensive legislation that ended up not actually helping African Americans but for some odd reason, there's still people talking about how amazing it was for the civil rights movement?

Desegregation "progress" reversed and is actually referred to as a "failure":

https://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-and-diversity/brown-at-60-great-progress-a-long-retreat-and-an-uncertain-future

Black people still "enjoy" the highest rate of joblessness but the gaps have remained almost exactly the same before and after the Civil Rights Act:

http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/charts/unemployment-by-race-and-ethnicity/

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300003

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300006



Blacks still "enjoy" a higher rate of poverty level wages:

http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-wages-figure-4f-share-workers-earning/


And, this is the kicker: the had a smaller gap of poverty level wages BEFORE the Civil Rights Act. Meaning, relative to poverty level wages, blacks were better before the "amazing and helpful" act.

And here is something that people really really don't like to talk about: labor force participation by race in 1900 vs. today.



Ratio of black to white, prime working age males, in 1900:

1

Meaning white men and black men had almost exactly the same amount of labor force participation rates.

hmm

What about now?

.85

Hmm


Don't you find that a bit odd?

https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2292&context=facpub






And I looked it up:

Wage gap between black and white has been between 51%-64% since the 1940s. Meaning, black households are making 51-64% what white households are making...for decades. Civil Rights Act? Doesn't seem to be effective. We peaked on income ratios between 1970 and 1980 from what I'm finding. And many studies suggest this was due to the 1960s civil rights movement. But then why did those gains halt or even reverse?

So what do we have? Segretation is still a massive problem. Income inequality is still a problem. Educational attainment, while still much improved across all races, is still a problem (by race comparisons). Marriage rates are worse than ever for African Americans compared to other races.

Other than the 1970s, let's forget that decade. What did the Civil Rights Act REALLY do? Other than, of course, causing marriage rates to worsen among African Americans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/08/28/these-seven-charts-show-the-black-white-economic-gap-hasnt-budged-in-50-years/




It's quite terrible that I had to dig around this much to find actual data on this. I had to dig through so many websites that hid the raw date from me so much, like this. And they talk and talk about all these "wonderful" thing that the Civil Rights Act did. And they try to hide the lackluster performance by citing numbers from 1990. Well, what about 1900? What about 1950? You need historical context to test efficacy of public policy.



But you did say something that I definitely agree with. It was a step in the right direction, for the time. Just didn't provide anything long-lasting.


Edit - Redlining and wealth. Still the same old issues.

The liberals hiding this I could see. Conservatives not doing the work you're doing makes no sense.

Are they too lazy? Stupid? Or is there some other reason..?

Originally posted by cdtm
The liberals hiding this I could see. Conservatives not doing the work you're doing makes no sense.

Are they too lazy? Stupid? Or is there some other reason..?

No one wants to be the politician that does 1 of 2 things:

1. Points out that the American Civil Rights Act was largely ineffective and perhaps even harmful to the intended purposes. That's the fastest way to tank a legit career. Who wants to be labeled a racist? Ron Paul said to repeal it for different reasons and he still got labeled a racist.

2. Points out that legislating forcing people to mix races doesn't work or at least it doesn't seem to work.


And I am hardly the first person to point out and question the American Civil Rights Act. Some of the links I posted are from black authors who are questioning its efficacy.


I can hardly take credit for this. But, honestly, I haven't seen someone try to track down this data and lay it out like this, before. I care more about the data than the talking points.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Why do rightists want to obey the 1% In the US they even voted one in as POTUS. Is it because they are submissives also called Bottoms and want a Superior to lead them.

This coming from the Guy who was BRAGGING about having a HOUSE BOY!?

Who here is the Real 1% in this discussion?

Fly, you mistake ironic observation for bragging. That hardly surprises me.

As the rightist Nazi that you are, you would never talk to me online like this if you really saw me as a 1%er you'd be inboxing with offers to lick my was. Hang on what have you just sent me, Fly that's a disgusting offer I use Andrex. I don't need a human bidet. You sick ****!

What do French Comedians have to do with this?

These poor and working-class people love to imagine themselves in a position of wealth. They seem to argue about taxes, the minimum wage, labor laws, and such from that perspective, instead of from their current spread-eagle position in which they're getting ****ed by the wealthy they defend.

"The more a person deems absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition, the further left he or she will be on the ideological spectrum. The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be". --Roderick Stackelberg

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
These poor and working-class people love to imagine themselves in a position of wealth. They seem to argue about taxes, the minimum wage, labor laws, and such from that perspective, instead of from their current spread-eagle position in which they're getting ****ed by the wealthy they defend.

"The more a person deems absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition, the further left he or she will be on the ideological spectrum. The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be". --Roderick Stackelberg exactly.

Says the guy that rapes his House Boy.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Says the guy that rapes his House Boy. you and your homosexual rape fantasies Fly. Yeah I get what you want and whilst we both know I could easily force you, sorry pal, I'm straight.

Why do leftists enjoy serving Government?


One of the most disturbing things I've ever read on rational wiki: Someone scoffed at the notion that MKUltra was focused on slipping people lsd. He then expouses how involved it was, and ends it with "We learned a lot".

A secret government project that experimented on people without their knowledge or consent, and he says "We learned a lot".

And no one calls him on it.

Conservepedia is stereotypical jokes, but the rational wiki alternative people are creepy..

Most leftists of my generation in Europe are Unionists, who believe in workers rights and the welfare state. We serve each other, the people. We believe in taxes so everyone has a safety net.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Most leftists of my generation in Europe are Unionists, who believe in workers rights and the welfare state. We serve each other, the people. We believe in taxes so everyone has a safety net.

That's because your generation and older lived through some very crappy worker eras and it was upon the backs of your parents that we enjoy...not working 20 hours a day for 10 cents an hour when we are 10 years old.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's because your generation and older lived through some very crappy worker eras and it was upon the backs of your parents that we enjoy...not working 20 hours a day for 10 cents an hour when we are 10 years old. This is true. I don't disagree with any of that and it will happen again if people don't understand how those with money work.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
you and your homosexual rape fantasies Fly. Yeah I get what you want and whilst we both know I could easily force you, sorry pal, I'm straight.


...................

Originally posted by Flyattractor
................... dur

Originally posted by Putinbot1
dur

No meds in the Slave Coast for your condition?

you're? dur

Pootybutt does work for Dictators and Islamic Extremists so it just stands to reason He would support such things.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
you're? dur


To be fair, he used it correctly the first few times.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Pootybutt does work for Dictators and Islamic Extremists so it just stands to reason He would support such things.

Originally posted by Putinbot1


Bet your House Boy makes that Face all the time.

Originally posted by dadudemon
To be fair, he used it correctly the first few times. Yeah, then he lost his temper. durhulk

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Yeah, then he lost his temper. durhulk

Looks more like YOU lost your Temper...

Originally posted by Eternal Idol
These poor and working-class people love to imagine themselves in a position of wealth. They seem to argue about taxes, the minimum wage, labor laws, and such from that perspective, instead of from their current spread-eagle position in which they're getting ****ed by the wealthy they defend.

"The more a person deems absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition, the further left he or she will be on the ideological spectrum. The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be". --Roderick Stackelberg

It goes deeper then that.

A tax credit program for the elderly was just cut. mayor is still obligated to pay for it by law, just without state support.

So he refused to pay. A lot of elderly are saying "Why couldn't they cut it from those other handouts? Free food for kids in schools.

I feel for the kids, but why do I got to pay for it? Us seniors paid in, and now they're screwing us? Screw someone else!"

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Looks more like YOU lost your Temper...

Ha! You got 'em good this time. He probably injected a few CCs of roids to cope with this sick burn. uhuh

Originally posted by cdtm
It goes deeper then that.

A tax credit program for the elderly was just cut. mayor is still obligated to pay for it by law, just without state support.

So he refused to pay. A lot of elderly are saying "Why couldn't they cut it from those other handouts? Free food for kids in schools.

I feel for the kids, but why do I got to pay for it? Us seniors paid in, and now they're screwing us? Screw someone else!" Well this is the difference between the until recently accepted European mindset and that of many people in the US, the Universal understanding anyone can be poor, there but for luck or the grace of God go I and a society is judged by how it looks after the less fortunate. The majority of kids today have never really gone without in the UK so they don't get this.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Ha! You got 'em good this time. He probably injected a few CCs of roids to cope with this sick burn. uhuh

its his House Boy you should really be feeling sorry for.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Well this is the difference between the until recently accepted European mindset and that of many people in the US, the Universal understanding anyone can be poor, there but for luck or the grace of God go I and a society is judged by how it looks after the less fortunate. The majority of kids today have never really gone without in the UK so they don't get this.

Says the Guy who only got his Nice Career with in a Corrupt Company via His WHITE PRIVILEGE!!!!!!

Originally posted by Putinbot1
you're? dur

Kinda weird to conflate the small business owner whose business brings in say $500k a year before taxes and overhead and probably gives themselves a personal salary of around $150K, with the mega millionaires and billionaires, or even the SBO who bring in 35million a year in sales. Then again, that's exactly what the Cult of Trump cucks would do.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Ha! You got 'em good this time. He probably injected a few CCs of roids to cope with this sick burn. uhuh

Rich people taste like chicken.

Originally posted by Robtard
Kinda weird to conflate the small business owner whose business brings in say $500k a year before taxes and overhead and probably gives themselves a personal salary of around $150K, with the mega millionaires and billionaires, or even the SBO who bring in 35million a year in sales. Then again, that's exactly what the Cult of Trump cucks would do. It's TI, he's kind of weird Rob. PTSD is a terrible thing.

Originally posted by BackFire
Rich people taste like chicken. I'd suggest Duck in Trumps case, all that fat.

Duck is delicious.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
It's TI, he's kind of weird Rob. PTSD is a terrible thing.

The local plumber with two vans and two employees and the small business who has 200 employees and 7million in annual sales, there's virtually no difference.

Kind of like how you "DUCK" your House Boy?

I'm too tall to effectively duck.

Originally posted by BackFire
I'm too tall to effectively duck.

You're just not trying hard enough

The correct answer is I'm lazy. If I try to duck I just end up sitting down.

Originally posted by Robtard
Kinda weird to conflate the small business owner whose business brings in say $500k a year before taxes and overhead and probably gives themselves a personal salary of around $150K, with the mega millionaires and billionaires, or even the SBO who bring in 35million a year in sales. Then again, that's exactly what the Cult of Trump cucks would do.

A small business is defined as a company with fewer than 50 employees under many tax and labor laws in the US.

Under this definition, a small business could also mean a Wall Street investment firm that rakes in tens of millions in a single quarter.

Some small business firms rake in millions a year, some pull numbers like you mentioned. Depends on the type of business and how successful they are.


I honestly don't know if I'm helping or hurting your point.

Originally posted by BackFire
I'm too tall to effectively duck.

Yet you QUACK UP all the time.

All this talk of duck is making me want to watch the Mighty Ducks films.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
It's TI, he's kind of weird Rob. PTSD is a terrible thing.

I like Supra/TI. But he got mad at me when I gave one of his new sock accounts a hard time for not posting links to support his position. I didn't know it was him. uhuh

Originally posted by BackFire
All this talk of duck is making me want to watch the Mighty Ducks films.

Duck Tales, man. Get it right.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I like Supra/TI. But he got mad at me when I gave one of his new sock accounts a hard time for not posting links to support his position. I didn't know it was him. uhuh

TI is honestly a good guy. I liked talking to him one on one when I did. He gets a little carried away at times on this site, though, with his weird grudges. He knows this.

Originally posted by BackFire
TI is honestly a good guy. I liked talking to him one on one when I did. He gets a little carried away at times on this site, though, with his weird grudges. He knows this. Pretty much my feelings on TI too. I wish he was consistent and wish he got some cbt... no, not that. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy. He is an intelligent guy and probably knows full well what his problems are.

Originally posted by Putinbot1
Pretty much my feelings on TI too. I wish he was consistent and which he got some cbt... no, not that. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy. He is an intelligent guy and probably knows full well what his problems are.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I like Supra/TI. But he got mad at me when I gave one of his new sock accounts a hard time for not posting links to support his position. I didn't know it was him. uhuh Originally posted by BackFire
TI is honestly a good guy. I liked talking to him one on one when I did. He gets a little carried away at times on this site, though, with his weird grudges. He knows this. Originally posted by Putinbot1
Pretty much my feelings on TI too. I wish he was consistent and wish he got some cbt... no, not that. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy. He is an intelligent guy and probably knows full well what his problems are.

Pretty much the same feelings towards TI, there's been plenty of times when we were cool and I enjoyed interacting with him, but he's so easy to set off even unintentionally. When he's level-headed, I have no problem being cordial with him.

eg One of the times we had been cordial/cool for a few months and I responded to a post of his in an admittedly somewhat dismissive fashion and I added "sport" at the end; he buttphucking exploded on me 50x more than was reasonable, PM rage galore.

Originally posted by Robtard
Pretty much the same feelings towards TI, there's been plenty of times when we were cool and I enjoyed interacting with him, but he's so easy to set off even unintentionally. When he's level-headed, I have no problem being cordial with him.

eg One of the times we had been cordial/cool for a few months and I responded to a post of his in an admittedly somewhat dismissive fashion and I added "sport" at the end; he buttphucking exploded on me 50x more than was reasonable, PM rage galore. Yeah, he needs to get a little help. So if you're reading this Supra mate... see a Doctor and I'm not saying that to be a ****.

I liked TI. His friends though...

Originally posted by Adam Grimes
I liked TI. His friends though... True that!

The US is in a far better place right now for minorities than it was in the 20's, 40's, 60's, 70's etc. That's all in part because of the positive baby steps that happened throughout history, from the 19th Amendment in the 20's, to Jim Crow being abolished in the 60's to the Equal Rights Act in the 70's. Was/is everything perfect? Obviously not, but you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater; you keep the good and work to fix the not good.

But Squall doesn't want it to be a good place for minorities. Even if he most assuredly is not part of the only minority that matters.

Originally posted by Robtard
The US is in a far better place right now for minorities than it was in the 20's, 40's, 60's, 70's etc. That's all in part because of the positive baby steps that happened throughout history, from the 19th Amendment in the 20's, to Jim Crow being abolished in the 60's to the Equal Rights Act in the 70's. Was/is everything perfect? Obviously not, but you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater; you keep the good and work to fix the not good.

Not according to #BlackLivesMatter.

Wasn't about Johnson's reasons...

Shit on LBJ all you like, I personally don't care; he came and went out of office before I was born. But that quote is an unsubstantiated claim that the Republicans likely made and pushed it into the minds of people like you.

Yeah. It is NEVER the Democrats Fault when they do RACIST Things.

Originally posted by Robtard
The US is in a far better place right now for minorities than it was in the 20's, 40's, 60's, 70's etc. That's all in part because of the positive baby steps that happened throughout history, from the 19th Amendment in the 20's, to Jim Crow being abolished in the 60's to the Equal Rights Act in the 70's. Was/is everything perfect? Obviously not, but you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater; you keep the good and work to fix the not good.

Okay, I can agree to this take. It's better but not because of the American Civil Rights Act. It's better because of the American Civil Rights Movement and not the laws. The laws were expensive and largely ineffective for effecting the change that was needed, as I outlined in that other post.


And, yeah, LBJ is a despicable person but he worked wonders for the Democratic Party and getting minority voters.

Originally posted by Robtard
Wasn't about Johnson's reasons...

Shit on LBJ all you like, I personally don't care; he came and went out of office before I was born. But that quote is an unsubstantiated claim that the Republicans likely made and pushed it into the minds of people like you.

One repudiatable quote does not really clean the slate with LBJ:


And a classic statement like this about his appointment of Thurgood Marshall:




The one quote in question is hardly out of line with his well-known and documented racist attitude.

My point is, despite the sleuthing that snopes did, it is far more likely that he said it and much worse than not.

It wouldn't surprise me if a White man born in Texas in 1908 had used disparaging words in regards to Black people though out his life. But the specific quotes are an unknown if he did or did not.

Originally posted by Robtard
It wouldn't surprise me if a White man born in Texas in 1908 had used disparaging words in regards to Black people though out his life. But the specific quotes are an unknown if he did or did not.

Says Robbie who has often tossed out Homophobic Insults on this very Board.


BINGO!

Bingo isn't a homophobic insult though.

Saying "I can't go to Bingo anymore because I caught two bums sucking each other's cocks in the alley and I threw a brick at them." Might be though.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Says Robbie who has often tossed out Homophobic Insults on this very Board.


BINGO! dur

Originally posted by Putinbot1
dur

and Bingo it is.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
and Bingo it is. durhulk triggered